下载文档原格式
张法连.,2016.法律英语精读教程（上）,北京:北京大学出版社Chapter6E qual P rotectionI ntroduction-t he14th A mendment p rohibits s tates f rom d enying a ny p erson w ithin i ts jurisdiction t he e qual p rotection o f t he l aws-t he l aws o f a s tate m ust t reat a n i ndividual i n t he s ame m anner a s o thers i n s imilar conditions a nd c ircumstances-t he c lause i s n ot i ntended t o p rovide"equality"a mong i ndividuals o r c lasses b ut o nly "equal a pplication"o f t he l aws-t he q uestion a rises w hen a s tate g rants a p articular c lass o f i ndividuals t he r ight t o engage i n a n a ctivity y et d enies o ther i ndividuals t he s ame r ightI.C onstitutional S ource-t he E qual P rotection C lause o f t he14th A mendment h as n o c ounterpart i n t he Constitution a pplicable t o t he f ederal g overnment-h owever,g rossly u nreasonable d iscrimination b y t he f ederal g overnment v i olates t he Due P rocess C lause o f t he5th A mendment(B olling v.S harpe,w here r acial discrimination i n t he p ublic s chools o f t he D istrict o f C olumbia w as h eld a v iolation o f d ue process)-t he C ourt a pplies t he s ame s tandards u nder e ither c lausesII.P roving D iscriminatory C lassification-t he m ere f act t hat l egislation o r g overnmental a ction h as a d iscriminatory e ffect i s not s ufficient t o t rigger s trict s crunity o r i ntermediate s crutiny-t here m ust b e i ntent t o d iscriminate-i ntent c an b e s hown i n t hree w ays:(i)f acial d iscrimination;(ii)d iscriminatory application;o r(iii)d iscriminatory m otive1.F acial D iscrimination-m aking a n e xplicit d istinction b etween c lasses o f p ersons(e.g.b y r ace o r g ender)-> subject t o t he a ppropriate s tandard o f r eview-F acial D iscrimination A bsent R acial L anguage-->i f t he l aw c ould n ot b e e xplained e xcept i n r acial t erms,i t w ill b e h eld t o h ave used a r acial c lassification"on i ts f ace"e ven t hough t he l anguage o f t he l aw d id n ot include r acial l anguage2.D iscriminatory A pplication-a l aw t hat a ppears t o b e n eutral o n i ts f ace m ay b e a pplied i n a d ifferent m anner t o different c lasses o f p ersons-i f i t i s p roved t hat t he g overnment o fficials a pplying t he l aw h ad a d iscriminatory purpose(and u sed d iscriminatory s tandards b ased o n t raits s uch a s r ace o r g ender), the l aw w ill b e i nvalidated-E xamples:-->A l aw p rohibited o perating a l aundry i n w ooden b uildings,b ut g ave a g overnment agency d iscretion t o g rant e xemptions.I t w as s hown t hat t he a gency g ranted exemptions o nly t o n on-Asian a pplicants.S o t he l aw w as d eemed t o i nvolve r acial o r national o rigin c lassificaiton a nd w as i nvalidated(Y i ck W o v.H opkins)-->L aws a llow a ttorneys t o m ove t o s trike p otential j urors f rom a j ury(significantly involving t he s tate)e ither f or c ause o r w ithout c ause(a p eremptory s trike).I n e ither case,t here i s a n e qual p rotection v iolation w hen i t i s p roved t hat a n a ttorney e xcluded a person f rom a j ury o n a ccount o f t he p erson's r ace o r s ex(B aston v.K entucky)3.D iscriminatory M otive-a g overnment a ction t hat a ppears t o b e n etrual o n i ts f ace a nd i n i ts a pplication m ayh a ve d isproportionate i mpact o n a p articular c lass o f p ersons(e.g.a r acial m inority o r women)-s uch a s l aw w ill b e f ound t o i nvolve a c lassification o nly i f a c ourt f inds t hat t helaw-making b ody e nacted o r m aintained t he l aw f or a d iscriminatory p urpose-s tatistical p roof o f t he i mpact i s n ecessary b ut n ot s ufficient-s tatistical e vidence m ay b e c ombined w ith o ther e vidence o f l egislative o r administrative i ntent t o s how t hat a l aw o r r egulation i s t he p roduct o f a d iscriminatory purpose-E xamples o f n on-discriminatory m otive d espite s tatistical p roof:-->A p olice d epartment u sed r esults f rom a w ritten t est a s a c riterion f or h iring p olice officers.M embers o f i dentifiable r acial m inorities c onsistently g ot l ow s cores o n t he t est, although t here w as n o p roof t hat t he t est w as w ritten o r o therwise e mployed f or t he purpose o f d isadvantaging m inority a pplicants.B ecause o f t he a bsence o f n onstatistical proof o f d iscriminatory p urpose,t here w as n o e qual p rotection v iolation(W ashington v. Davis).-->A s tate l aw g ave a p reference i n t he h iring a nd p romotion o f c ivil s ervice e mployees to p ersons w ho w ere h onorably d ischarged f rom t he U nited S tates m ilitary.T he foreseeable a nd a ctual i mpact o f t his l aw w as t o d isadvantage t he f emale p opulation o f job a pplicants,b ecause t he m ajority o f v eterans a re m en.B ecause t here w as n o p roof (other t han t he s tatistical i mpact o f t he l aw)t hat t he l egislature e nacted t he l aw f or t he purpose o f h urting w omen(as o pposed t o t he p urpose o f a iding v eterans),t he l aw w as upheld.-->A s tatistical s tudy s howing t hat b lack d efendants i n c apital c ases a re m uch m ore likely t o r eceive t he d eath p enalty t han a re w hite d efendants i n a s tate w ill n ot i n i tself establish t hat a p articular b lack d efendant w as d enied e qual p rotection b y b eing sentenced t o d eath f or m urder i n t hat s tate.T he s tatistical s tudy i s i nsufficient t o p rove purposeful d iscrimination(M cCleskey v.K emp)III.S uspect C lassifications1.R ace a nd N ational O rigin-a g overnmental a ction i nvolving a s uspect c lassificaiton(r a ce,n ational o rigin,o r alienage)->s trict s crutiny,u nless i t i s n ecessary t o a chieve c ompelling n ational interest(K orematsu v.U nited S tates)-E xample:A s tate c ould n ot d eny c ustody o f a c hild f rom a p revious m arriage t o a w hite mother m erely b ecause h er n ew h usband w as b lack,w here t he m other w as o therwise found t o b e a n a ppropriate p arent.R acial p rejudice a gainst m ixed r ace c ouples d oes n ot justify t aking a c hild f rom h is m other(P almore v.S idoti)a.S chool I ntegration-o nly i ntentional s egregation i n s chools w ill b e i nvalidated-E xample:N o e qual p rotection v iolation w as f ound w here a s chool s ystem e stablished attendance z ones i n a r acially n eutral m anner,b ut r acial i mbalance o ccurred b ecause o f housing p atterns(K eyes v.S chool D istrict N o.1)b."Benign"G overnment D iscrimination-A ffirmative A ction-g overnment a ction t hat f avors r acial o r e thnic m inorities i s s ubject t o s trict s crutiny,a s is g overnment a ction d iscriminating a gainst r acial o r e thnic m inorities1)R emedying P ast D iscrimination-t he g overnment h as a c ompelling i nterest i n r emedying p ast d iscrimination a gainst a racial o r e thnic m inority-a r emedy o f t his t ype i s p ermissible b ecause i t i s n arrowly t ailored t o f urther a compelling i nterest(the e limination o f t he i llegal o r u nconstitutional d iscrimination)-E xample:W hen i t h as b een p roven t hat a p ublic e mployer e ngaged i n p ersistent r acial discrimination,a c ourt m ay o rder r elief t hat e stablishes a g oal f or t he h iring o r p romotion of m inority p ersons s o a s t o e liminate t he e ffects o f t he p ast d iscrimination(U nited States v.P aradise)2)W here T here H as B een N o P ast D iscrimination b y G overnment-a bsent p ast d iscrimination,t he g overnmental a ction m ust b e n arrowly t ailored t o achieve a c ompellling i nterest o f o ther t ypes(C ity o f R ichmond v.J.A.C roson C o.)a)R emedial J ustifications(1)L ocal P rivate D iscrimination-r emedying p ast p rivate d iscrimination w ithin t he g overnmental a gency's j urisdiction is a c ompelling i nterest-E xample:t he C ourt u pheld N ew Y ork's r evised v oting d istrict p lan,b ased s olely o n racial s tatistics,b ecause t he r evisions w ere m ade t o i nsure t hat m inorities t hat h ad previously b een d iscriminzated a gainst i n N ew Y ork w ould b e r epresented i n t he legislature(U nited J ewish O rganizations v.C arey)(2)D iversity i n P ublic E ducation-s chools:a s chool b oard m ay n ot a ssign s tudents t o a s chool o n t he b asis o f r ace unless n ecessary t o a chieve a c ompelling i nterest,s uch a s r emedying p ast unconstitutional(i.e.i ntentional)d iscrimination-c olleges a nd u niversities:t hey h ave a c ompelling i nterest i n h aving a d iverse student b ody(enhancing d iscussions,p romote c ross-racial u nderstanding,a nd b reak down r acial s tereotypes f or t he w orkforce),a lthough e ach a pplicant s hould b e considered a s a n i ndividual a nd r ace s hould n ot b e t he d ominant f actor t o t he assessment(G ratz v.B ollinger)c.D iscriminatory L egislative A pportionment-r ace c an b e c onsidered i n d rawing u p n ew v oting d istricts,b ut i t c annot b e t he predominant f actor-a r edistricting p lan d rawn u p p redominantly o n t he b asis o f r acial c onsiderations w ill violate t he E qual P rotection C lause u nless i t i s n arrowly t ailored t o s erve a compelling s tate i nterest(M iller v.J ohnsen:m aximizing t he n umber o f d istricts w here racial m inority m embers a re t he m ajority i s n ot a c ompelling i nterest)d.P rivate A ffirmative A ction-p rivate e mployers a re n ot r estricted b y t he E qual P rotection C lause,s ince t heir actions a re n ot s tate a ctions-p rivate d iscrimination b y e mployers a re r egulated b y s tatutes b ased o n t he e nabling provisions o f t he13th a nd14th A mendments a nd t he C ommerce C lause,n ot o n t he Equal P rotection C lause2.A lienage C lassificationsa.F ederal C lassifications-r eview s tandard i s n ot c lear,n ever s eem t o b e s ubject t o s trict s crutiny-c lassifications a re v alid i f t hey a re n ot a rbitrary a nd u nreasonable-H ence,f ederal M edicare r egulations c ould e stablish a f ive-year r esidency r equirement for b enefits t hat e liminated m any r esident a liens(M athews v.D iaz)b.S tate a nd L ocal C lassifications-s tate/local l aws a re s ubject t o s trict s crutiny i f b ased o n a lienage-a"compelling s tate i nterest"m ust b e s hown t o j ustify d isparate t reatment-->e.g.a s tate l aw r equiring U S c itizenship f or w elfare b enefits,c ivil s ervice j obs,o r a license t o p ractice l aw w ill b e s truck d own f or l ack o f c ompelling i nterest-E xception-P articipation i n S elf-Government P rocess-->i f a l aw d iscriminates a gainst a lien p articipation i n t he f unctioning o f t he s tate government,t he r ational b asis s tanard i s a pplied-->E xamples:--->1)A s tate c annot r equire a n otary p ublic t o b e a c itizen.A n otary's r esponsibilities are e ssentially c lerical a nd d o n ot f all w ithin t he e xception f or p ositions r elated t o participation i n t he g overnmental p rocess,a nd t here i s n o c ompelling g overnment interest j ustifying s uch a r equirement(B ernal v.F ainter)--->2)A s tate c an v alidly r efuse t o h ire a liens a s p olice o fficers a nd p rimary a nd secondary s chool t eachers a nd f or a ll o ther p ositions t hat h ave a d irect e ffect o n t he functioning o f g overnment(A mbach v.N orwich)c.U ndocumented A liens1)P unitive L aws A gainst"Ilegal"A lien A dults-t he C ourt h as n ot h eld t hat u ndocumented("illegal")a liens a re a s uspect c lassification -s uch l aws m ight b e u pheld u nder t he r ational b asis t est2)E ducation R ights o f A lien C hildren-d enying u ndocumented a lien c hildren s tate-supported p rimary o r s econdary e ducation violates t he E qual P rotection C lauseIV.Q uasi-Suspect C lassifications-i ncluding g ender a nd l egitimacy-s ubject t o i ntermediate s tandard o f r eview-s truck d own u nless s ubstantially r elated t o a n i mportant g overnment i nterest-t he g overnment i nterst m ust b e g enuine,n ot r elying o n o verbroad g eneralizations about m ales a nd f emales t hat w ill c reate o r p erpetuate t he l egal,s ocial,a nd e conomic inferiority o f w omen(U nited S tates v.V irginia)1.G ender-t he g overnment b ears t he b urden o f p roof-s tandard o f p roof:a n"e xceedingly p ersuasive j ustificaiton"(United S tates v. Virginia)a.I ntentional D iscrimination A gainst W omen-g enerally b e i nvalid-E xamples:-->1)A s tatute g iving t he h usband,a s h ead o f t he h ousehold,t he r ight t o u nilaterally dispose o f p roperty j ointly o wned w ith h is w ife v iolates e qual p rotection(K irchberg v. Feenstra)-->2)A s tatute g iving p reference t o m ales o ver f emales t o a ct a s a dministrator o f a n estate v iolates e qual p rotection(R eed v.R eed)-C ompare:-->1)A s tate l aw t hat e xcluded f rom s tate d isability i nsurance b enefits"disabilities" arising f rom n ormal p regnancy a nd c hildbirth w as u pheld o n a h olding t hat i t d id n ot constitute a g ender c lassification a nd s o d id n ot c onstitute i ntentional d iscrimination(G eduldig v.A iello)-->2)A s tate s tatute g ranting a h iring p reference t o v eterans w as u pheld e ven t hough the r esult w ould d isadvantage w omen s ince m ost v eterans a re m en.T he C ourt f ound that t he p urpose o f t he s tatute w as t o h elp v eterans,n ot t o d iscriminate a gainst w omen (P ersonnel A dminstrator o f M assachusetts v.F eeney)b.A ffirmative A ction B enefiting W omen-c lassifications b enefiting w omen t hat a re d esigned t o r emedy p ast d iscrimination against w omen w ill g enerally b e u pheld-E xamples:-->1)S ocial S ecurity a nd t ax e xemptions t hat e ntitle w omen t o g reater b enefits t o m ake up f or p ast d iscrimination i n t he w orkplace a re v alid(C alifano v.W ebster)-->2)A N avy r ule g ranting f emale o fficers l onger t enure t han m ales b efore m andatory discharge f or n onproduction i s v alid t o m ake u p f or p ast d iscrimination a gainst f emales in t he N avy(S chlesinger v.B allard)c.I ntentional D iscrimination A gainst M en-g enerally i nvalid-h owever,a n umber o f l aws h aven b een h eld v alid a s b eing s ubstantially r elated t o a n imporant g overnment i nterest1)I navlid D iscriminationa)D enial t o a dmit m ales t o a s tate u niversity o r n ursing s choolb)L aw t hat p rovides t hat o nly w ivies a re e ligible f or a limony(扶养费)c)L aw t hat p ermits u nwed(未婚的)m other,b ut n ot u nwed f ather,t o s top a doption of o ffspringd)L aw p roviding a h igher m inimum d rinking a ge f or m en t han f or w omen2)V alid D iscriminationa)L aw p unishing m ales b ut n ot f emales f or s tatutory r ape(sexual i ntercourse w ith a minor)b)M ale-only d raft r egistrationrc)A l aw g ranting a utomatic U nited S tates c itizenship t o n onmarital c hildren b orn abroad t o A merican m others,b ut r equiring A merican f athers o f c hildren b orn a broad t o take s pecific s teps t o e stablish p aternity i n o rder t o m ake s uch c hildren U S c itizens2.L egitimacy C lassifications-s ubject t o i ntermediate s crutiny s tandard-m ust b e s ubstantially r elated t o a n i mportant g overnmental o bjectivea.N o P unitive P urpose-n ot u phold d iscriminatory l egislation i ntended t o p unish t he o ffspring o f i llicit relationships1)I nheritance f orm F ather-c annot a bsolutely e xclude i llegitimate c hildren f rom i nheriting f rom t heir i ntestate fathers2)S tatute o f L imitations o n P aternity S uits M ay B e D iscriminatory-i mposing s uch l imitations n ot r elated t o s tate i nterest o f p reventing s tale o r f raudulent claimsb.I mmigration P reference t o L egitimate C hildren-P ermissible-u pheld a f ederal l aw g ranting i mmigration p erferences t o l egitimate c hildrenV.O ther C lassifications-A ll o ther c lassifications a re r eviewed u nder t he r ational b asis s tandard a nd w ill b e upheld u nless t hey b ear n ot r ational r elationship t o a ny c onceivable l egitimate government i nterest-E xamples:-->1)...t he g overnment h as n o l egitimate i nterest i n p rohibiting m entally r etarded persons f rom l iving t ogether(C leburne v.C leburne L iving C enter,I nc.)-->2)...a s tate c onstitutional p rovision t hat i dentifies p ersons b y a s ingle t rait o f homosexual o r b isexual o rientation a nd t hen d enies t hem t he r ight t o s eek a ny s pecific protection f rom t he l aw i s s o u nprecedented a s t o i mply a nimosity t oward s uch p ersons and i s t hus n ot r elated t o a ny l egitimate s tate i nterest(R omer v.E vans)-A ge a nd w ealth a re n ot a s uspect c lassifications,s ubject o nly t o t he r ational b asis standard。
